Conservative firebrand Glenn Beck has joined a growing chorus of Republican commentators in defending gay marriage, laying out a strong case for ending government opposition to letting same-sex couples wed.

"Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people  I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution," Beck said during a recent segment of his online talk show. "The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?"

While Beck's defense of gay marriage may seem surprising, given his far-right political views and audience, it is actually not new. Earlier this year, Beck said that he has the "same opinion on gay marriage as President Barack Obama" and does not see same-sex unions as a "threat to America."

Still, Beck's public renewal of his support for gay marriage comes at a politically significant moment for the GOP, which is working to reshape its message to appeal to a changing electorate. A Gallup survey released last week found that 53 percent of Americans are in favor of legalizing gay marriage, a number that has been steadily growing for the past decade.

Moreover, by couching his support for gay marriage in a libertarian framework, Beck makes the case for the right to look past differences on social issues in order to broaden their coalition to include all limited government conservatives.

"What we need to do, I think, as people who believe in the Constitution, is to start looking for allies who believe in the Constitution and expand our own horizon," Beck said. "We would have the ultimate big tent."

The problem with Gay Marriage is that a judge in MA ruled that since it is now legal in MA that ALL parental notifications laws were vacated by it. Giving Gay Activists unfettered access to other people’s children.

"What we need to do, I think, as people who believe in the Constitution, is to start looking for allies who believe in the Constitution and expand our own horizon," Beck said. "We would have the ultimate big tent."

The statement by Beck is evidence that he has a slightly disordered mind because he supports the contention that men and women are 100% interchangeable. The Constitution cannot change biological facts or natural law.

I personally do not believe that men and women are interchangeable. Men living with men are friends. Women living with women are friends. The Constitution gives all and each and every one of us the same rights.

The problem with Gay Marriage is that a judge in MA ruled that since it is now legal in MA that ALL parental notifications laws were vacated by it. Giving Gay Activists unfettered access to other peoples children.

Do you have more information on this? I did a basic search and couldn't find anything that led me to more information. Sad, if true.

19
posted on 12/11/2012 10:02:53 AM PST
by Colonel_Flagg
("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)

Beck appears to have joined those who have lost the concept of language. Government did not create or define marriage - it has no right to redefine it and disregard language by force of law. Two people of the same sex cannot be husband and wife - it has nothing to do with “bigotry” or “discrimination” - it is simply reality.

Supporting gay marriage doesn’t take government out of the equation. It uses government to force the rest of us to recognize something we don’t recognize.

It isn’t a limitation on the power of government; it is an further intrusion of the power of government into an area where it has not previously intruded, to overturn a moral tradition of thousands of years of standing.

Government seems to be involved in marriage already, since they are trying to force priests and pastors to perform marriages, and they are passing laws that say, in effect, “you vill do this, und you vill like it!”

He doesn't get it. If he wants the govt. to get completely out of regulating marriage, he'd have to change 10,000 laws and regs in 50 states and eliminate all marriage-based benefits, including those related to taxation, property, insurance, survivors' rights of all kinds, liability for debts, custody of/responsibility to children, etc.

He's not really proposing this. He's just making noises which ultimately boil down to: sanity must yield to insanity -- and then, oh, by the way, law, medicine and education will be bent to the agenda, dissenters will be hounded, marginalized and prosecuted, social organizations and human services will be queered, church-related institutions will be beaten down to the ground, out Kindergartners will be forbidden to assume that Family Day means Moms and Dads, and our 5th graders will be memorizing the key principles of dildo hygiene and safe sodomy.

"Other than that, of course, it doesn't affect a thing."

My respect for Glenn Beck just sank to a new low: not because he's wicked, but because he's stupid.

There is this thing called “family law”. It deals with issues of child custody, tutorship, financial and social responsibilities and so on. So that dependent children and sometimes spouses are cared for, healthy and hopefully not utterly ignorant. Every civilization has family law, and every government deals with it, either well or poorly. Not dealing with it at all is an example of dealing with it poorly.

For those of you who are slow of thought.

40
posted on 12/11/2012 10:16:22 AM PST
by Psalm 144
(Not so "commanding", not so "inevitable".)

Unlike Flapp Jackson, I think it is a threat. Flapp is delusional on this one.

But it seems to me with state involved, at least in the modern era, the definition it uses to recognize the institution is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority thinks it is at any one time. Thast’s it, that’s all it will ever be. The definition the state uses can coincide with actual marriage, or it can include impossibilities like ‘gay marriage’ everytime a judge, pol, or the majority decide it should. It was always a danger, Pope Leo XIII warned about the state’s power over the institution 130 years ago.

The only way the homosexualists can punish those who won’t buy into their ‘gay marriage’ nonsense is if the state is involved.

Doesn’t matter though, gay marriage is coming, that’s all. The GOP has failed to make the case against it just as it has failed to make the case against everything else it supposedly believes in.

So either we find a way to use it to our advantage, or we don’t. I expect we don’t.

I don’t support it either. Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of making families and strong family units, nothing else. Personally, I think the gays will not be satisfied with their own right to marry. I expect that they will see that only they have the right, and heterosexual marriages will be frowned upon then banned. Watch.

This is the way this world is going, and this issue will be used by the enemy to further divide the right, and the right will use this issue to further divide itself, and the left will win.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.